Rural Washington DC Americans for Monsanto, er Hillary

too funny to be true.   A fundraiser (yes another one) for the NY Senator titled "Rural Americans for Hillary" to be held in a lobbying firm in Washington DC.

the lobbying firm represents the "rural" monsanto company whose genetically engineered crops and animals are used in "rural" America. 2007/10/yee-haw.html

So later this month, according to THIS INVITATION, the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the end of this month....

..but she's holding it in Washington, DC.... a lobbying firm...

... and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs...

...which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."

...A company that the website "Ethical Investing" labels "the world's most unethical and harmful investment."

Holding an agri-summit in the plush halls of the lobbyists for Monsanto doesn't sound like the kind of "rural Americans" a presidential candidate would necessarily want to be photographed with.

in contrast here's Edwards' "rural" americans. t/front_pdf/1-A-Thu-October-18-07.pdf

I'm only a hick from NC but I didn't know you rural Washingtonian's put hogs and chickens in your "rural" K street offices..

Tags: Hillary (all tags)



Re: Rural Washington DC Americans for Monsanto, er

Wow. It really seems more and more clear that if Hillary gets the nod, we can look for the "culture of corruption" to stop being just a Republican problem.

by McSnatherson 2007-10-18 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington DC Americans for Monsanto, er

This belongs in the Believe it or Not annals of political history. Yes, this fits perfectly with Hillary's vision of Rural America. To her it is the corporations and not the people that are important. It is insulting and disgusting that this woman is leading any poll for the nomination.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-18 10:48AM | 0 recs
Boots not allowed

wouldn't want to mess up the white carpet in the law office, don't you know.  

by DrFrankLives 2007-10-18 10:55AM | 0 recs

Tarheel's daily obsession with Mrs. Clinton continues...

LOL. Knock it off and calm down.

by areyouready 2007-10-18 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Tarheel

Areyouready, why don't you just leave and go to the alter of Hillary and worship some more.

by BDM 2007-10-18 11:34AM | 0 recs

I almost always ignore the Hillary polling diaries.. I don't know why areyouready can't do the same.

besides it's pretty funny to just slap a slogan on something no matter how disconnected and pretend it's true

by TarHeel 2007-10-18 11:59AM | 0 recs
Do you know who Monsanto is?

If you did and your a Clinton supporter you would jump ship now.

by yann123 2007-10-19 06:17AM | 0 recs
I enjoyed the Edwards campaign response

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - In response to reports that Senator Clinton is planning a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the DC offices of Troutman Sanders Public Affairs, the lobbying firm for Monsanto, John Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement:

"While John Edwards was in rural Iowa yesterday talking about his plans to help family farmers, the Clinton campaign was in Washington , DC planning an event with the lobbyists from the biggest corporate agriculture company in the world. The difference between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton could not be more clear. Here's some news for the Clinton campaign, when folks in rural Iowa talk about the problems with hog lots, they don't mean parking lots on K Street .

"John Edwards believes family-owned farms are critical to America 's future and that the corporate greed that's killing the family farm is hurting America . Apparently, Hillary Clinton doesn't feel the same way. While John Edwards has introduced policies to ensure family farmers can compete against big agribusiness, protect the food we eat and preserve farming communities, Hillary Clinton, beholden to Washington lobbyists, is tailoring her rural policy to reflect the needs of big agribusiness. While corporate America and lobbyists may want someone like Clinton in the White House, regular Americans are ready for someone who will stand up for them and fight for real change."

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-18 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I enjoyed the Edwards campaign response

Yeah, we all know Clinton will finish in fourth place based on your prognosis. LOL

by areyouready 2007-10-18 12:28PM | 0 recs
that was with Vilsack in

As I have said, I think with him out and campaigning for her, she's more likely to finish third in Iowa.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-18 12:45PM | 0 recs

You have finished first in my heart.


Because you constantly spin for a candidate whose staff is clearly stupid as fuck.

This is some really funny shit.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-18 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Arseyouready...

Stupid? Is that why she has one of the best political machines in the country? Is that why she went from 30% to 50% in 9 months in an 8-man race? Is that why she has been able to use the attacks by Obama, Edwards and Republicans in her favor? These attacks fuel her campaign. Is that why she has been able to solidify her support among Democrats and superdelegates? Please. Stupid my ass.

Edwards, our 2004 Vice Presidential nominee and so called most electable candidate, who did nothing for the ticket, politically or amongst the electorate, is falling in the polls, unable to raise enough money despite his so called populist position on the issues. Edwards, the man who will say or do anything to get elected, is who you support. The candidate who is nothing like the candidate who ran in 2004. The southerner who says he can take his ultra liberal agenda to conservative states such as Kansas and OK and win. Yeah rigth. Edwards, the phony.

Troll rate me. I know you want to do it, but just because I see different on Edwards does not mean you can silence me or Clinton supporters. We are not the one trying to take over the site, it is people like who, who post diaries and scramble to Rec it just to keep positive diaries in the limelight.

by RJEvans 2007-10-18 07:40PM | 0 recs
Once again...

A Clinton lover who knows nothing about polling.

National primary polls are a joke, and frankly so are you.

Check my previous comments, it explains everything.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-18 09:03PM | 0 recs

and nice way to play the victim...typical Clinton supporter...knows nothing about politics, polling, policy, or whatever, and always plays the victim.

You are almost as pathetic as arseyouready...almost

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-18 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh...

What the hell is wrong with you Michael, is that all you could play? Claim Clinton supporters know nothing while you know everything about politics?

Check my comments from the last few months again and do your propper research if you're so smart., I agree, it is the state polls that matter in this undemocratic primary process. But you could never deny a candidate when they reach 50% nationally, especially when 20+ states will vote on February 5.

Edwards supporters are relying on Iowa alone and a Kerry surge if he does win Iowa. Fact is, it will not happen, and anyone who could read the internals effectively (even this long out) should know that. Clinton's core support is higher than any presidential candidate for the nomination and she will get delegates no matter what. John Edwards will not win NH and will not even come close to winning NH, especially with Independents in the mix. He will not win SC, African-Americans already have their candidates, Clinton and Obama, and they are not swtiching sides to Edwards. MI, and FL might not have delegates, but they still matter, because the MSM will report the results. Six months ago I would have said he has a chance in NV, but Richardson is more likely to win the state than Edwards at this point. Plus, Edwards has practically lived in Iowa since 2004, why in the hell is it a three-man race according to most polls? The name recognition argument does not work here, because Iowan know Edwards from 2004, and Obama is doing just as well as him.

The odds are tremendously agaisnt your candidate. Take this for what it's worth, the last time a non-incumbet VP nominee who won the presidential nominee was Roosevelt in 1932, and he waited 12 years to run again after being nominated for VP in 1920. Before and after that, it never occured, and there is a reason for it. (NOTE: Mondale won the presidential nomination after losing out to a second term for VP)

BTW, did I ever insult you? No, I did not and you are the exact same person who accuses Clinton supporters of playing dirty. That my friend is hypocrisy at its finest. John Edwards will be proud.

Funny enough, you did not even defend your candidate, instead, you attacked me. Shows a lot about your intent.

by RJEvans 2007-10-19 07:36AM | 0 recs

they need a funny TV ad with this event as the central focus.  handled correctly, this could be the one thing people in Rural Iowa and New Hampshire remember about Clinton in the caucus room or polling booth.

Angry press releases from underling number one are not going to get it done.


by DrFrankLives 2007-10-18 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: boring

I'm not sure how many folks in Iowa actually see Monsanto as the enemy.  They're a big employer, and an awful lot of farmers have their signs out by the highway.

by Steve M 2007-10-18 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: boring

'Tis true.  Sigh.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-18 01:36PM | 0 recs
environmentalists see them as the enemy

Environmentalists in Iowa despise Monsanto.

Tomorrow I will be attending the annual meeting of the Iowa Environmental Council in Des Moines, and I will make sure to mention this event to any Hillary leaners or supporters I may encounter there.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-18 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: environmentalists see them as the enemy

Well, environmentalists everywhere despise Monsanto, as they probably should.  But what's your perspective on the reaction of the average Joe?

by Steve M 2007-10-19 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I enjoyed the Edwards campaign response

I think other rural americans should come on down to K St. and bring a flatbed truck with a pig & a few chickens, or maybe just a small, organic pumpkin patch.  Seriously, the K St. event is just made for some sort of counter-event.

by howardpark 2007-10-19 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington DC Americans for Monsanto, er

I'm only a hick from NC but I didn't know you rural Washingtonian's put hogs and chickens in your "rural" K street offices..


Well, they're more like genetic mutations.

(Didn't the Clintons give Tyson Foods a pass on all sorts of pollution because they were big donors?)

by Bush Bites 2007-10-18 01:34PM | 0 recs
This is hillarious

hard to believe its even true, though it is. It would be pretty hard to make up something more ridiculous or that showed more hypocrasy.

by okamichan13 2007-10-18 01:36PM | 0 recs
I was grossed out at the 2004 Convention

There was a lavish party for Tom Harkin called "Agriculture Salutes Tom Harkin".  Lots of young good looking guys shucking piles and piles of oysters, steak,ribs etc.  Then a whole room devoted to tons and tons of Ben and Jerry's ice cream with toppings. It was sponsored by all the big Agri-businesses.
 There was a smaller but posh event at a Beacon Hill Townhouse with Champaigne, caviar and more seafood.  That was called "Oil and Gas Salute Max Baucus."

I wish somebody would address those lavish lobbyist parties at the Convention.  I work in Hollywood.  We  have over the top parties because we are in the entertainment industry not the democracy business.   We aren't supposed to be making the world a better place, but sometimes I think we are doing a better job with movies like Syriana, Rendition, Michael Clayton, Network, SICKO, Pan's Labyrinth, Kite Runner.....

by Feral Cat 2007-10-18 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I was grossed out at the 2004 Convention

I attended the AT&T Party at the HQ of the North Carolina delegation and the Congressional Black Caucus/some corporate behemoth party with Roberta Flack.  

now THAT was a hell of a party.

by DrFrankLives 2007-10-18 02:56PM | 0 recs
This here, a bunch of BULLSHIT...

for real.

by iamready 2007-10-18 02:46PM | 0 recs
you deny the facts?

She's holding a meeting on rural issues in the offices of Monsanto's DC lobbyist.


by DrFrankLives 2007-10-18 02:57PM | 0 recs
he rec'cd the diary

so I think he means the title of the event is B.S.. not the diary

by TarHeel 2007-10-18 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: he rec'cd the diary


by iamready 2007-10-19 10:22AM | 0 recs
oh. oops

by DrFrankLives 2007-10-26 07:05AM | 0 recs
Monsanto is like Wal-Mart

Monsanto is a horrible company. They have way too much control on seed for farmers. They have been buying out all of the small seed companies in a lot of rural places. Just like Wal-Mart did with mom and pop stores. Pretty soon, they will have a monopoly and will be able to charge huge prices for their products. I can't believe Hillary is associated with them. Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad. This will not help her with rural votes in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or anywhere in America. Oh, and when did Monsanto become rural? I thought their headquarters was in St. Louis. Last time I check, St. Louis was a city.

by harmony94 2007-10-18 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Progressive Politics just Like the Donald

Next thing you know on Halloween, Clinton will be coming out in a pair of blue jeans with a rope string or a pair of overalls just like Trump did in singing Green Acres last year: hc

Yes, this is partly a snark, but this example of a brownbag lunch of rural Americans hosted by a major company who tries to take away family farms and still wants corporate welfare does not support the idea of a progressive agenda. It supports the status quo.  We have Republicans who do that now and we don't wish "to trade in a bunch of Corporate Republicans for a bunch of Corporate Democrats," as JRE concluded in a live online session at WaPo today.

LINK to WaPo

by benny06 2007-10-18 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington

What I find funny is how much Edwards is losing and how Hillary has taken the lead in Iowa after all those trips he kept taking there from that "supposed" poverty charity.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-18 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington

Clinton declares a sovereign nation a terrorist organization?
-yeah but she's winning

Clinton openly supports the way lobbyist control washington?
-yeah but she's winning

Clinton holds a fundraiser sponsored by Monsanto?
-its not true cause she's winning

by leewesley 2007-10-18 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington

Yeah, Bush won twice.  Does that mean he was right?  Did it mean the special interests wouldn't hold the balance of power?   Did it change any of the facts of who he was as a candidate or as a president?

by Orlando 2007-10-18 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington

this is our concern dude

by leewesley 2007-10-18 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington

Clinton declares a sovereign nation a terrorist organization?

-A misrepresentation and one of many. She voted to express that she believes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organiazation.

Clinton openly supports the way lobbyist control washington?

-Another misrepresentation, she wants reform like most Democrats.

Clinton holds a fundraiser sponsored by Monsanto?

-So what? Are you against people that support her?

by RJEvans 2007-10-18 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington

With Clinton as the nominee, we can get ready for 8-9 months of these kinds of things coming from WITHIN the Democratic Party and progressive coalition.  

With Edwards as the nominee, we can get ready for 8-9 months of party-building, new supporter-identification, and people returning to the Democratic Party for the first time since 1968.  The thing I hear the most from my lefty lefty acquantances and the more "culturally conservative" acquaintances in rural WI and in the suburbs around Madison here is something to the tune of:

"He said what?  He's going to ___ ?  Well I haven't heard a Democrat like that in a while.  That's a guy I'd be happy to vote for."

This guy resonates.  He's great for us in the short-, medium-, and long-terms when it comes to building a progressive movement and the Democratic Party.

by Peter from WI 2007-10-19 06:34AM | 0 recs
Once again....

A Clinton supporter who knows virtually nothing!

You win Iowa on the ground, a lot of those polls have very loose screens which favors Hillary, and Edward's has spent like 1/20th of what she has spent on ads.

Are you all really this misinformed?

Or are you just pathetic liars.

I think it's the second option.

You can present Clintonistas with the truth over and over, you still ignore it.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-18 09:10PM | 0 recs
let them raise expectations for Hillary

Oh no! She's going to win the caucuses by 10 points!

The boots on the ground and the second choices in the precinct caucuses are going to put a big dent in Hillary's state delegate totals.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-18 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Rural Washington DC Americans for Monsanto, er

you are too hard on monsanto. it takes skill to engineer rice and corn that will only grow one cycle so that poor farmers have to keep buying it.

by leewesley 2007-10-18 05:06PM | 0 recs
Monsanto event could be a tipping point

Much of Iowa is rural. Even many of the city and suburbanites have rural roots. Feelings about preserving farms run deep.

by CyberCitizen 2007-10-18 05:13PM | 0 recs
While Monsanto

Does not appear to have any redeemable qualities, it also appears you Edwards supporters have yet to take the Lobbyist issue to a level that would make it actually mean something.

What's missing?

I'll let you Edwards supporters fret for a little bit over what it might be.

by Edgar08 2007-10-18 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: While Monsanto

Hillary is in bed with corporations and their lobbyists.  Said corporations demand some quid pro quo, or their influence even just lingers in Hillary's heart and mind.  Policies are set, nominations are made, programs are administered.  Miraculously, government continues to work more for Big Business and Corporate America.  

That means something.  It means bad policies that don't positively impact regular people (and certainly not that vaunted middle class HRC keeps talking about).  Which means a) we've failed on our principles and b) that we immediately give people a reason not to vote for us and/or identify with progressive political principles.  It means that we have sacrificed democracy at the altar of campaign cash so that our elections become auctions of who can be the biggest prostitute for the right to fuck the American people.

Does that not mean something to you?

by Peter from WI 2007-10-19 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: While Monsanto

Very well put!

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-19 07:15AM | 0 recs
One Policy

Just list one policy of Clinton's that shows Clinton is going to do what Monsanto wants Government to do.

Just one.

by Edgar08 2007-10-19 07:59AM | 0 recs
Clinton Screws Us All

While John Edwards was in rural Iowa yesterday talking about his plans to help family farmers, the Clinton campaign was in Washington, DC planning an event with the lobbyists from the biggest corporate agriculture company in the world. The difference between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton could not be more clear. Here's some news for the Clinton campaign, when folks in rural Iowa talk about the problems with hog lots, they don't mean parking lots on K Street.

Nuff said......

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-19 05:38AM | 0 recs

Silly, according to Boston globe

But a rival campaign said Edwards, too, has had ties to Monsanto, including investments in a private-equity firm that invested in the company.

In May, Fortress Investment Group, a publicly held private-equity fund for which Edwards worked part time last year, held 9,700 shares in Monsanto worth a relatively insignificant $533,000, US Securities and Exchange Commission documents show. The Fortress fund had shed those shares as of August, records show. The Wall Street Journal reported in August that Edwards had roughly $16 million invested in Fortress funds.

When Edwards ran for president in 2004, one of his top aides, Peter Scher, was a registered Monsanto lobbyist at the firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer accused Edwards of ignoring his links to Monsanto and attacking the senator out of desperation.

"In 2004, John Edwards said, `If you are looking for the candidate that will do the best job of attacking the other Democrats, I am not your guy,' " Singer said. "But he's become that guy now that his 2008 campaign has stalled."

by areyouready 2007-10-19 07:12AM | 0 recs
there's a lot of funny stuff

like having a "rural americans" for hillary in an urban K street lobbyists office.

also,  flimsy ties are not exactly the issue.

by TarHeel 2007-10-19 07:53AM | 0 recs




by Edgar08 2007-10-19 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: silly

Fortress Investment Group has over $40 billion in assets under management.

You are pointing out that $533,000 of those assets, or approximately .001%, were invested in Monsanto.

If you consider that a "tie" to Monsanto - the fact that Edwards worked for and invested in a hedge fund that invested .001% of its assets in Monsanto - then you must be truly, truly desperate for an argument.

Of course, I don't expect much from the guy who announced yesterday that Giuliani had been endorsed by Jeb Bush, when it was actually an endorsement from Jeb Bush's 23-year old son.  There's a lot of cutting and pasting, but little independent thought.

by Steve M 2007-10-19 08:22AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads